Legal Opinion

Englishtown Corp. v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided April 21, 1977No. C.A.D. 1187; No. 76-24PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Rich, Judge.

This appeal is from the judgment of the United States Customs Court, 76 Cust. Ct. 107, C.D. 4642, 409 F. Supp. 764 (1976), sustaining the classification of certain articles as “Mirrors” under TSUS item 644.61. We reverse and remand.

The articles are invoiced as “Electric Travel Beauty Kits.” The invoice notwithstanding, a label on appellant’s Exhibit 2, a sample of the imported merchandise, describes it as a “portable illuminated, two-way make-up mirror.” When not in use, each article appears to be a small plastic vanity case,1 approximately 13” long, 9” high, and 3” wide, with a…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. E. Green & Son (New York), Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
  2. Englishtown Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1976

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Phone-Mate, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1988
  2. Ozen Sound Devices v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1980
  3. Janex Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1978
  4. United States v. Mobay Chemical Corp.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1978
  5. Beacon Cycle & Supply Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1978

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API